Melbourne has its stuff more sorted out. Past govts of Sydney sold off rail corridors for their property development mates and funders. Just converting one lane of a motorway into a railway line is better long term. Eg they've destroyed the natural stony median strips on the F2 to build one more lane. But it all ends up the same. You hit Pennant Hills Rd/Pac Hwy and the congestion is there. 8 lanes, 6 lanes into 4, 2....still same problem = congestion. Victoria Rd near the Iron Cove bridge duplication = more congestion to Darling St. In the meantime there's still only two railway lines going up and down NSW and for our poor regional cousins who lost their train services in the 80s, I'm sure some others can talk about that....infrastructure does not just mean building more roads, highway lanes FFS.

martinjs wrote:Sorry, can't call Sydney a Mega City, you have to have a population of more than 10million to do that! Let's hope Aussie cities don't get that big, apparently Melbourne is growing faster then Sydney and will pass it by the end of the decade.

Public transport doesn't work. We have an urban sprawl, not urban consolidation. We have multiple destinations, not everyone going to work in the city.

If you want to go point to point, nothing beats a car (or bicycle).

Urban consolidation is a part solution. Allowing bikes on public transport is another part solution. More electric bikes is another part solution (it is unrealistic to expect people to ride bicycles on long, hilly terrain like Sydney).

Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.

diggler wrote:Public transport doesn't work. We have an urban sprawl, not urban consolidation. We have multiple destinations, not everyone going to work in the city.

Not sure that is the case. The difference b/n our city rail network and other successful ones is one of network pattern. Look at paris and NYC, they have multiple overlapping lines on top of each other, making A-B travel easy. Our network is more like all-roads-lead-to-Rome.

How will upgrading a road tackle congestion?!!!! All roads lead to Rome -erm I mean Sydney. Build more roads! Build more roads! Maybe I should move to within 2kms of my workplace. I can smell traffic from the text.

I did that! I can't tell you how great it feels to sit at home until 15 minutes before work watching how terrible the traffic report is.

I went one step better and moved to Port Macquarie. Most weekdays usually includes a 40km ride in the the morning, a leisurely breakfast and then a 10 minute trip along the beach road - and still in the office for 8am. Hearing the Sydney traffic reports on the morning radio, or watching the congestion on the evening news always brings a smile to my face. I used to be part of that - now I reckon I've got an extra 15 hours leisure time a week!

Giant TCR 0Nobody looks back on their life....and remembers the nights they got plenty of sleep !!

diggler wrote:Public transport doesn't work. We have an urban sprawl, not urban consolidation. We have multiple destinations, not everyone going to work in the city.

Not sure that is the case. The difference b/n our city rail network and other successful ones is one of network pattern. Look at paris and NYC, they have multiple overlapping lines on top of each other, making A-B travel easy. Our network is more like all-roads-lead-to-Rome.

If you were to build a network like the London underground, it would cost a fortune.

I ama amazed that those systems do work. If you were an Aussie parent taking kids to school, go to work, take daughter to ballet, son to rugby practice, play some tennis, do some shopping etc. How can you do all this without a car? I don't have kids myself, but I'm guessing that is what parents do.

Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.

diggler wrote:If you were to build a network like the London underground, it would cost a fortune.

I ama amazed that those systems do work. If you were an Aussie parent taking kids to school, go to work, take daughter to ballet, son to rugby practice, play some tennis, do some shopping etc. How can you do all this without a car? I don't have kids myself, but I'm guessing that is what parents do.

Yep, a cost the state can't afford. And bear in mind that those cities took decades to complete their present network. While here, a single short line can take a decade or two of political and resident bickering. I can't see the future of this.

As for children. Yep, with the present school system and extra-curricular activities, it's almost impossible to do without the car.

I can't see a value in trying to turn away from the car, the only thing that will stop it is crushing costs to run one - returning to the early 30s and 40s when a car was the plasma of the 90s. I think we'll do well to start carving out paths for bikes, because let's face it, the load bearing capacity of anything to do with a pushie like paths or bridges is negligible even compared to the smallest cars. I think we'll do well to analyse where all these people are actually driving, because the all roads/trains/buses lead to Sydney CBD approach kinda sucks. Do we simply lack the infrastructure to ferry 4 million people around?

Either way, Sydney accounts for 20% of the entire country. It is right that our resources, paid for by those 20%, are poured into the city, because Sydney is the population and economic powerhouse for NSW.

We need a vision for the future; as much as I think Clover Moore is probably a twit, she's showing an aggressive vision of what transportation could look like. My local area in Seven Hills and Toongabbie is quite good for cycle commuting. Should more areas be like it?

diggler wrote:If you were to build a network like the London underground, it would cost a fortune.

I am amazed that those systems do work. If you were an Aussie parent taking kids to school, go to work, take daughter to ballet, son to rugby practice, play some tennis, do some shopping etc. How can you do all this without a car? I don't have kids myself, but I'm guessing that is what parents do.

1. Our road network is costing an even bigger fortune.2. Subways like those in New York and Tokyo work because there is simply no more efficient way to move around vast number of commuters.3. As for taking kids to school, ballet, rugby etc.,., you have to think back to how working class parents managed from the 1920's through to early 1960's - when many families could not afford a car, and even middle class families could only afford one. Children's sport, schooling, and after school activities were organized on a local basis. Look in cities like Tokyo and Shanghai, and you will see mothers transporting their children on bicycles. Families also did more walking and less TV watching - pretty healthy outcomes.

Billions of people all over the world manage happy lives without cars. We will rediscover their secrets as oil prices and roads congestion persuade us of their unsustainability.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

wombatK wrote:3. As for taking kids to school, ballet, rugby etc.,., you have to think back to how working class parents managed from the 1920's through to early 1960's - when many families could not afford a car, and even middle class families could only afford one. Children's sport, schooling, and after school activities were organized on a local basis. Look in cities like Tokyo and Shanghai, and you will see mothers transporting their children on bicycles. Families also did more walking and less TV watching - pretty healthy outcomes.

Things have changed. A lot of children these days have a far fuller extra-curricular plate than when we went to school. Music, ballet, taekwondo, rowing, public speaking, inter-school competitions and the list goes on. Of course, family can choose to not involve their kids in all these extra-curricular activities like the old days, but time have changed and many families do. A world of new learning opportunities provided by affluence and mobility resources. There'll need to be better options than just bicycles to fulfill these needs.

Yes indeed, in the Riverina Rugby comp we have Hay so every so many weeks everyone hops in to their cars and has to head of to hay for the games, 171k's and more for Narradera and such. Worse still for the people from Hay as they travel most weeks for the Saturday games.Cycling to those every week if you can.

wombatK wrote:3. As for taking kids to school, ballet, rugby etc.,., you have to think back to how working class parents managed from the 1920's through to early 1960's - when many families could not afford a car, and even middle class families could only afford one. Children's sport, schooling, and after school activities were organized on a local basis. Look in cities like Tokyo and Shanghai, and you will see mothers transporting their children on bicycles. Families also did more walking and less TV watching - pretty healthy outcomes.

Things have changed. A lot of children these days have a far fuller extra-curricular plate than when we went to school. Music, ballet, taekwondo, rowing, public speaking, inter-school competitions and the list goes on. Of course, family can choose to not involve their kids in all these extra-curricular activities like the old days, but time have changed and many families do. A world of new learning opportunities provided by affluence and mobility resources. There'll need to be better options than just bicycles to fulfill these needs.

You have a seriously distorted view of what a kid NEEDS to do in their spare time. The parents WANT their kid to do all this stupid stuff (because let's face it, how many kids actually have the focus to actually direct their attention to mastering all these activities), and if they can't figure out how to get them to all these without a car, they have to look at themselves - is their self absorbed desire to force their kid to do stuff overtaking a social responsibility to the community? There are few more reviled stereotypes than the soccermum. There is a reason for that

Xplora wrote: is their self absorbed desire to force their kid to do stuff overtaking a social responsibility to the community? There are few more reviled stereotypes than the soccermum. There is a reason for that

I just wished that the supermum stereotype was as reviled as the soccermum. The supermum stereotype enslaves women to a high-stress lifestyle vainly trying to emulate the models in glossy magazines, TV and hollywood movies. Equally vainly, women substitute buying things with doing things for their kids, because super-mum must be a bread-winner too and (like dad) has no time for doing things.

Sadly, maybe the only way women have of liberating these stresses is to live vicariously through their soccer-sons - occasionally the pressures reach breaking point and they explode at the soccer field. Men-folk understand this and have a couple of choices : do something about it, or be reviled by it. Judging by how many families are on the treadmill, the latter is the more popular option.

Taking away some of the supporting techonology, like cheap oil, cars and road infrastructure, might liberate women from this treadmill - far more effectively than anything Germaine Greer managed to achieve.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

Offtopic: my wife is a bit that way. She wants to work, is raising our toddler, about to pop another, seems to be constantly feeling like the house isn't tidy enough - I'm just not as enthusiastic as she is about doing much these days. LOL! But we have heated discussions sometimes because I've said from the outset that I never told her to be a supermum, I want the house reasonable and food on the table. I do plenty to help that happen, but I've made a commitment to be the main breadwinner and we have enough to eat and survive. Everything else is greed, and I think it narks her to realise that she is forcing this supermum stereotype on herself. I don't care about the house that much, or the bank balance. You want to build your idols and bow down to them? I can't stop you, but don't bitch and moan that your knees and back hurt from bending in front of Baal

Prior to cars becoming king something like 90% of people spent their entire lives within 20ish kms of their homes. I heard that on a doco about the mas production of cars which or course led to congestion and urban sprawl.

I suspect that we will see a localisation of our economies, as transport becomes more expensive and time consuming people will look to shop/live local. This might be a welcome change from driving an hour to Costco to spend an hour in the queue just to get into the car park...

Your kids can work at local stores, play sport in local teams, cycle to the local school, and who knows there might be more jobs created in the localised economies such that less people have to commute into cities.

In saying that I would not want the cities to die or be less vibrant so a happy middle ground needs to be reached. At present way too many people rely on cars for short trips and commutes where PT is readily available.

You are expecting people to make a choice that they aren't interested in making. It would be a lie to say that we have moved away from the horse and cart because we like the horse too much to subject it to that work. People choose the most productive transportation method available (to their thinking). The only way to change that is to restructure the way cars are priced on the roads. A serious upshift in petrol prices would create all the change necessary. You want local to thrive? You need to make sure out of town costs a lot more. When it is more economical for Coles in NSW to ship all their goods from a warehouse in Goulburn across the whole state, than to get those same products delivered directly to the store only 10kms away, something isn't working in the system. Petrol and oil are just too cheap to inspire a change. If you can't afford the change, tough. Necessity is the mother of all invention, as they say. I would love a trailer for the bike to do the shopping, but I'm no slave to the status quo

Your kids can work at local stores, play sport in local teams, cycle to the local school, and who knows there might be more jobs created in the localised economies such that less people have to commute into cities.

Great idea, but wait! To work local you need to shop local, we have the situation where I work that people send their kids into our shop to ask for a job. Only problem with that (remembering that this is a small town) they don't shop here, nor do their parents. They all head of to Griffith which is a 110k round trip or

Wait for it.

They shop on the internet which leads to more "gasp" Trucks on the roads.Quite ironic if you go back through lots of our threads and see how many of us slam truck drivers and the congestion on the roads.Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but we need to all practice what we preach.

Your kids can work at local stores, play sport in local teams, cycle to the local school, and who knows there might be more jobs created in the localised economies such that less people have to commute into cities.

Great idea, but wait! To work local you need to shop local, we have the situation where I work that people send their kids into our shop to ask for a job.

You'd also know that towns like Leeton make up something like only 5-10% of the population, right? I don't think anyone is saying that you shouldn't have a car in Leeton, but maybe the 90++++++% of urban Australians can look at other options? Most people in the city don't have to drive 15 minutes at 100kph to get to a shopping centre of some kind

Your kids can work at local stores, play sport in local teams, cycle to the local school, and who knows there might be more jobs created in the localised economies such that less people have to commute into cities.

Great idea, but wait! To work local you need to shop local, we have the situation where I work that people send their kids into our shop to ask for a job.

You'd also know that towns like Leeton make up something like only 5-10% of the population, right? I don't think anyone is saying that you shouldn't have a car in Leeton, but maybe the 90++++++% of urban Australians can look at other options? Most people in the city don't have to drive 15 minutes at 100kph to get to a shopping centre of some kind

I know that, but I'm actually agreeing with most of what's being said. Or town's entire CBD is only 3K's from on end to another. Lots of people around here could get away with owning but not using their cars during the week. About 70% of our population is less than 5 k's from most of the CBD and their work but only about 5% walk or cycle to work. Bloody crazy if you ask me.

I had to go on a call out several months ago and went I my bike, about 2 k's away. The person who came home to let me in drove is 2.5 tonne Landcruiser less than 1/2k home to let me in. Stupid and unnecessary. I'd have to say less people by percentage here commute to work by walking or riding than they do in the city and we are better suited area wise for it.

Xplora wrote:Either way, Sydney accounts for 20% of the entire country. It is right that our resources, paid for by those 20%, are poured into the city, because Sydney is the population and economic powerhouse for NSW.

Funny, I thought the economic powerhouse of NSW was the black stuff being dug out of the ground everywhere EXCEPT Sydney...

Major roads and other infrastructure should be paid for using tolls over a long long term say 50 to 100 years.

Other ways to fund roads can be looked at, etags can be used to charge people for using traffic lights, roundabouts and the list goes on. Small fees per intersection, this would mean people who damage the roads are paying for them.

Basically I am penalised for living in a central location close to work, school, childcare, shops etc... and people who buy large homes in far flung suburbs, drive their cars and have health problems are costing me a fortune.

Xplora wrote:Either way, Sydney accounts for 20% of the entire country. It is right that our resources, paid for by those 20%, are poured into the city, because Sydney is the population and economic powerhouse for NSW.

Funny, I thought the economic powerhouse of NSW was the black stuff being dug out of the ground everywhere EXCEPT Sydney...

Mining is only a small part of the money that is collected in taxes that pay for all this stuff. Sydney has a very big chunk of the nation's biggest companies and most employees paying income tax and GST etc. Mining is a big part of our nation's above expectations growth, but there is another 95% of the economy that isn't mining that you need to account for when considering the overall picture. Check the head offices for most of the ASX All Ordinaries. Brisbane. Melbourne. Sydney.

Sydguy wrote:Major roads and other infrastructure should be paid for using tolls over a long long term say 50 to 100 years.

Other ways to fund roads can be looked at, etags can be used to charge people for using traffic lights, roundabouts and the list goes on. Small fees per intersection, this would mean people who damage the roads are paying for them.

Basically I am penalised for living in a central location close to work, school, childcare, shops etc... and people who buy large homes in far flung suburbs, drive their cars and have health problems are costing me a fortune.